360 PLANTS FROM WHICH SENNA-LEAVES ARE OBTAINED. 
with fruits of the narrow-leaved senna, with the inscription 
C. lanceolata } (probably written by Sir Joseph Bankes, for 
by Forskal 's hand, C. Senna only was written on it.) In 
this no glands could be discovered ; the leaves were some- 
what more developed, but the whole habit perfectly agreed 
with that of C. angustifolia, Vahl. Besides this, there 
was also a specimen of C. ligustrina, Forskal, with the 
glands, but without fruits. The dispute about the glands 
was the cause of the quarrel between Delile and De Can- 
dolle, and I cannot help agreeing with the first in denying 
the presence of glands in the officinal species ; for, in spite 
of many and laborious examinations of whole bales of stalks, 
I have as yet not been able to discover among senna-leaves 
in commerce stalks with glands. It was necessary, in the 
first place, to establish this fact ; and I corresponded, there- 
fore, lately with Professor Vahl, in Copenhagen. He sent 
me a leaf of a plant possessing glands, C. lanceolata, For- 
skal, and upon which Forskal is said to have written with 
his own hand, Surdud Senna. Judging from the leaf, this 
plant is C. ligustrina, and it is very probable that Forskal 
only wrote the above-mentioned name from oversight. It 
is, however, much to be regretted that this mistake crept 
into his Flora JEgypt. Arabica, and thus to the detriment 
of science, has been promulgated in every manual. The 
leaves of this C. ligustrina are very like those of Tinevelly 
senna, but somewhat more pointed and (almost impercep- 
tibly) finely ciliated at the edge. The fruit is a narrow, 
scymitar-shaped, curved, yellowish pod (legumina linearia 
incurva,) very different from the officinal foiliculi, and con- 
sequently not belonging to Senna. The fruit I saw for the 
first time in the specimen preserved in the Lirmaean herba- 
rium. Whoever has not seen and closely examined this 
plant, may easily mistake it for the full-grown Mecca and 
Tinevelly or East India senna. The mistake of Forskal, 
therefore, (who had manifestly not seen and collected this 
plant when in fruit) may be readily excused ; I cannot 
however, omit to correct his mistake publicly. 
